Campaign season really gets underway this week and it's shaping up to be a real beauty.
First out of the box, Council members Wojcik and Judge really blasted the Democrats. Troy Democrats scheduled a fundraiser....outside of Troy! Yes, can you believe it? Wojcik and Judge ask, appropriately so, "why aren't Democrats supporting Troy businesses?" Damn straight! But before that question is answered, lets ask: "Why did Harry take $60,000 out of Troy and hand it to a Scotia insurance Agency?" Sure, Marshall & Sterling ended up splitting it with a Troy firm but the whole $60,000 could have remained in Troy. Hell, that's like two part-time jobs for Mirch! Lets have that question answered first.
Secondly, the Republicans are running two ethically-challenged candidates, Bauer and DeAngelis. Will the Democrats raise that as an issue? We'll see. Somehow we doubt it.
Now, on to some news.
Check out Franco's Talespin (Monday, September 5th). We can't find it on-line or we'd post a link. Unbelievably, we agree with Mr. Franco.
Dredging up the past and/or private lives of candidates is beyond the pale. The North Greenbush case is particularly interesting because the candidate never kept his past a secret. Why the Democrats are going after him is beyond us. In fact, if they push too hard there might be a backlash of sympathy.
A candidate's public record is fair game, as are actions that place his or her interests above that of constituents. Unethical behavior and breaking the law is one thing, private matters that occurred some time ago are quite another.
Even private matters that may have occurred yesterday are generally irrelevant. It's an infantile notion to believe a flawed individual cannot be a good public servant. Can a mayor or governor that cheats on their spouse be a good mayor or governor? Of course. History has proven that to be the case.
Unfortunately, the media doesn't seem to follow-up on stories that do reflect on a public official's public record. Has any area reporter seriously questioned Harry Tutunjian on the Carignan issue? Has any one of them simply asked Harry to verify his claim that switching insurance brokers saved the city $60,000? It's a pretty simple question.
Harry will respond, "I can't comment on pending litigation." Of course, the logical follow-up to that is: why not? Tutunjian will be deposed sometime before March of 2006 by Carignan's lawyer. It's the question Harry will be asked at the deposition, so why not answer it now? This is serious business. A public official lying about a public matter. It's slightly more important than where Democrats hold their fundraisers or who did what in 1972.